The Competitiveness of Nations
in a Global Knowledge-Based Economy
October 200
3Nathan Rosenberg [1]
Adam Smith on the Division of Labour:
Two Views or One?
Economica
32 (126), May 1965
127-139.
Adam Smith’s treatment of
the division of labour has intrigued readers and
commentators for many years. On the one
hand it provided a masterful analysis of the gains from specialization and
exchange upon which, it is no exaggeration to say, the discipline of economics
was nurtured. On the other hand, Smith’s
apparent afterthoughts of Book V, where he refers to the deleterious effects of
the division of labour upon the work force,
constitute a major source of inspiration for the socialist critique of
capitalist institutions, as Marx himself acknowledged. For Smith states here, in part:
In the progress of the division of labour,
the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour,
that is, the great body of the people, comes to be
confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of
men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is
spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps,
always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his
understanding, or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for
removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of
such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for
a human creature to become... His dexterity at his own particular trade seems to
be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilised
society this is the state into which the labouring
poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless
government takes some pains to prevent it. [2]
The apparent contradiction
between the views of Book I and Book V has often been commented upon. Marx observes in Capital that Adam
Smith “... opens his work with an apotheosis on the division of labour. Afterwards,
in the last book which treats of the sources of public revenue, he occasionally
repeats the denunciations of the division of labour
made by his teacher, A. Ferguson.” [3] More recently, in a reappraisal of this subject, Dr. E. G.
West presents a confrontation of “Adam Smith’s Two Views on the Division of Labour” which
1. The author is indebted to his colleague, June Flanders, for helpful
suggestions.
2. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Modern Library edition, edited
by Edwin Cannan, pp. 734-5. All subsequent references are to this
edition.
3. Karl Marx, Capital, Foreign Languages Publishing I-louse,
Moscow, 1961, p. 123. Marx’s curious
notion, that Adam Smith was heavily indebted to Adam Ferguson in his analysis
of the consequences of division of labour, will be
dealt with in a later footnote.
127
he regards as “contradictory”, “incompatible”, and involving
a “striking inconsistency.” [1] Since the issues involved are intrinsically important in
addition to playing a seminal role both in the development of economic thought
and in the critique of capitalist institutions and capitalist development, I
propose to re-examine Smith’s treatment of division of labour
primarily as it relates to one central issue: the determinants of inventive
activity. I will show that Smith’s
treatment of this problem is, in certain respects, considerably more complex
and interesting than it has previously been made out to be. Furthermore, I hope to demonstrate that his
analysis is free of the inconsistencies and contradictions which have been
attributed to it. The issues at stake
are of considerable importance, since Smith’s long-term prognosis for
capitalism is centred upon its capacity for
generating technical change and thus substantially raising per capita income.
This capacity, in turn, is made by Smith
to depend overwhelmingly - indeed one may almost say exclusively - upon the
division of labour and the consequences flowing from
it. As Schumpeter has stated, “...
nobody, either before or after A. Smith, ever thought of putting such a burden
upon division of labor. With A. Smith it
is practically the only factor in economic progress.” [2]
A difficulty which most
commentators seem to encounter with Smith’s views on division of labour results from interpreting the discussion in Book I to
mean that invention is the sole product of workers’ intelligence. [3] Then, having
shown by quotation from Book V that Smith believed that workers become
increasingly “stupid and ignorant” as a result of division of labour, the inference is drawn that Smith is involved in a
contradiction. This view of Smith is inadequate
and misleading on several important counts.
We need, first, to enlarge
the scope of our discussion by recognizing that Smith looks upon inventive
activity as a process which has several dimensions. Increasing division of labour
encourages invention in a variety of ways. It does this, first of all, by sharpening the
attention of the worker and focusing it more forcefully than before upon a
narrow range of processes. By narrowing
down the range the worker is enabled to lavish greater care as well as
curiosity upon his work. His mind is subjected
to fewer distractions. In the absence of the need to make frequent readjustments by moving
from one sort of activity to another, the worker proceeds in a spirit of”
vigorous application. [4]
1. E. G. West, “Adam Smith’s Two Views on the Division of Labour”, Economica, February
1964, PP. 23-32.
2. Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, New York,
1954, p. 187.
3. In his opening paragraph, for example, West
states: “The reader is first reminded of the discussion in Book I of the
economic effects of the division of labour, and of
its favourable moral and intellectual effects on the
workers” (West, bc. cit., p. 23). And later: “The argument of Book I clearly
suggests that the division of labour enhances man’s
mental stature as it increases the quantity of goods produced” (p. 25).
4. Wealth of Nations, pp. 8-9.
128
The division of labour no
doubt first gave occasion to the invention of machines. If a man’s business in life is the
performance of two or three things, the bent of his mind will be to find out
the cleverest way of doing it; but when the force of his mind is divided it
cannot be expected that he should be so successful. [1]
The worker’s perception of
mechanical deficiencies and of possibilities for improving the efficiency of an
operation is heightened by the unrelieved intensity in the focus of his
attention. Smith’s apocryphal story of
the young boy who, anxious to get off and give vent to his youthful exuberance
with his playfellows, invented a device which opened and closed the valves of a
steam engine without his assistance, is surely compelling evidence that Smith
regarded the invention as a consequence of a narrow focusing of interest and
attention rather than of a mature or developed intelligence.
A further important aspect
of Smith’s view of inventive activity, as his story of the boy and the steam
engine makes clear, is motivation. One
of the major themes of the Wealth of Nations, of course, is its
exhaustive examination of the manner in which institutional arrangements
structure the decision-making of the individual, sometimes in a manner which
harmonizes private interest and social interest, and sometimes in a manner
which disrupts them. [2] Smith has a great deal to say, for example, on the impact
of different systems of land ownership on the introduction of agricultural
improvements. Although his reference
here is primarily to capital formation, rather than invention, the importance
of motivation in stimulating certain types of economic behaviour
shows up clearly, and is applicable to the issue of the determinants of
invention and innovation as well.
On the one hand the large
landowner is corrupted by his easy and luxuriant style of life:
To improve land with profit, like all other commercial
projects, requires an exact attention to small savings and small gains, of
which a man born to a great fortune, even though naturally frugal, is very
seldom
1. Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms delivered in the
University of Glasgow by Adam Smith, edited by Edwin Cannan,
1896, p. 167 (subsequently referred to as Lectures). Cf. also Wealth of Nations, pp. 9-10,
and an early draft of the Wealth of Nations, which appears in W. R.
Scott, Adam Smith as Student and Professor, Glasgow
1937, p. 336 (subsequently referred to as Early Draft). West recognizes the effect of increasing
division of labour in performing these functions. My objection to his treatment is in his
insistence that the progressive division of labour
increases intelligence as well as alertness. “It is, however, in the third proposition,
that invention and mechanization are encouraged by the division of labour, where we find Smith’s most philosophical and
conclusive case for favourable effects upon
intelligence and alertness.” West, op.
cit., p. 25. I find no
evidence, either in the quotations cited by West, or in my own reading of Book
I of the Wealth of Nations or elsewhere in Smith’s writings, to support
the interpretation that increasing division of labour
improves either the worker’s intelligence or understanding. Dexterity, certainly;
alertness, yes; intelligence, no.
2. This problem has been examined in some detail in Nathan Rosenberg,”
Some Institutional Aspects of the Wealth of Nations “, Journal of
Political Economy, December 1960, pp. 557-70.
129
capable. The situation
of such a person naturally disposes him to attend rather to ornament which
pleases his fancy than to profit for which he has so little occasion. [1]
On the other hand, the
varying forms of tenantry had, historically,
discouraged improvement on the part of the cultivator. “It could never... be the interest even of
this last species of cultivators [metayers] to lay
out, in the further improvement of the land, any part of the little stock which
they might save from their own share of the produce, because the lord, who laid
out nothing, was to get one-half of whatever it produced.” [2]
Where a system of farmers
developed, as in England, with legal protections and security of tenure,
considerable improvements might be undertaken. [3] For the motivation of the farmer is strengthened by the
reasonable assurance that he will himself enjoy the fruits of his own
initiative, ingenuity and industry. In
fact, “after small proprietors… rich and great farmers are, in every country,
the principal improvers.” [4]
Small proprietors
are, however, unsurpassed.
A small proprietor... who knows every part of his
little territory, who views it all with the affection which property,
especially small property, naturally inspires, and who upon that account takes
pleasure not only in cultivating but in adorning it, is generally of all
improvers the most industrious, the most intelligent, and the most successful. [5]
Perhaps the most extreme
example of the impairment of the incentive to invent is the case of slavery. For here the individual is deprived of all
possibility of “bettering his condition” and has scarcely any motive for
improving his productivity. “A person who can acquire no property, can have no other
interest but to eat as much, and to labour as little
as possible.” [6] Interestingly enough, Smith seems to have vacillated a good deal on
the precise handling of this issue. In
the Early Draft he tentatively attributes an invention to a slave.
Some miserable slave, condemned to grind corn between
two stones by the meer
strength of his arms, pretty much in the same manner as painters bray their colours at present, was probably the first who thought
1. Wealth of Nations, p. 364. In Lectures Smith had stated (p. 228): “Great
and ancient families have seldom either stock or inclination to improve their
estates, except a small piece of pleasure-ground about their house.”
2. Wealth of Nations, p. 367.
3. “… The yeomanry of England are rendered as
secure, as independent, and as respectable as law can make them.” Ibid., p.
394.
4. Ibid., p. 371.
5. Ibid., p. 392. Elsewhere Smith heaps praise upon successful
merchants who have turned country gentlemen. “Merchants are commonly ambitious of becoming
country gentlemen, and when they do, they are generally the best of all
improvers” (p. 384). For the successful
merchant has been subjected to the rigours and
discipline of commercial life and has acquired the values and habits essential
to the successful introduction of improvements. “The habits... of order, oeconomy
and attention, to which mercantile business naturally forms a merchant, render
him fitter to execute, with profit and success, any project of improvement” (p.
385).
6. Ibid., p. 365. Cf. Lectures, p. 225: “When lands... are
cultivated by slaves, they cannot be greatly improven,
as they have no motive to industry.”
130
of supporting the upper stone by a spindle and of
turning it round by a crank or handle which moved horizontally, according to
what seems to have been the original, rude form of hand mills… [1]
In the Lectures, however, he at one point
repeats the “probable” attribution of the upper spindle to a slave [2] while later in
the volume he asserts that “… slaves... can have no motive to labour but the dread of punishment, and can never invent
any machines for facilitating their business.” [3] Finally, in the Wealth of
Nations, although Smith does not much modify his basic scepticism
toward slaves, he hedges his statement, in characteristic Smithian
fashion, with qualifying phrases: “Slaves… are very seldom inventive;
and all the most important improvements, either in machinery, or in the
arrangement and distribution of work, which facilitate and abridge labour, have been the discoveries of freemen.” [4]
This quotation suggests our
next point, which is of considerable importance to Smith’s understanding of the
relationship between division of labour and
invention. Adam Smith clearly recognised the existence of a hierarchy of inventions
involving varying degrees of complexity, and requiring differing amounts of
technical competence, analytical sophistication and creative and synthesizing
intellect. Similarly, he distinguished
between the ingenuity required to produce any particular invention on the one
hand, and to modify it, improve it, or to apply it to new uses on the other. Interestingly enough, Smith’s most detailed
treatment is in the Early Draft; less appears in the Lectures and
in the Wealth of Nations. [5] With the only slight exception of his treatment of
slavery, however, there is no internal evidence that Smith altered his position
between the Early Draft and the Wealth of Nations.
It should be noticed, first
of all, that although Smith’s attempt to reconstruct the past with respect to
the invention of machines takes the form, in his exposition, of conjectural
history, he nevertheless shows a clear awareness of the evolutionary process in
the development of
1. Early Draft, pp. 336-37.
2. “Some miserable slave who had perhaps been employed for a long time
in grinding corn between two stones, probably first found out the method of
supporting the upper stone by a spindle “. Lectures, p. 167.
3. Ibid., p. 231. Smith
was surely a bit unreasonable concerning the motivation of a slave to undertake
inventions. When the only consequence is
to reduce his master’s costs, the slave may be assumed to be uninterested; but
when the invention improves the conditions of work in some respect, surely the
slave has such a motive. It is obviously
in the personal interest of the slave to devise inventions which eliminate the
most irksome and backbreaking varieties of work typically performed by slaves -
such as the early methods of grinding corn. See Early Draft, pp. 336-37.
4. Wealth of Nations, p. 648. Emphasis added. The quotation continues: “Should a slave
propose any improvement of this kind, his master would be very apt to consider
the proposal as the suggestion of laziness, and of a desire to save his own labour at the master’s expense. The poor slave, instead of reward, would
probably meet with much abuse, perhaps with some punishment. In the manufactures carried on by slaves,
therefore, more labour must generally have been
employed to execute the same quantity of work, than in those carried on by
freemen.”
5. The most relevant passages are pp. 336-8 of the Early Draft, pp.
167-8 of the Lectures, and pp. 9-10 of the Wealth of Nations.
131
human artifacts. After
surveying some of the basic inventions in agriculture and in grinding mills, he
states: “These different improvements were probably not all of them the
inventions of one man, but the successive discoveries of time and experience,
and of the ingenuity of many different artists.” Also: “We have not, nor cannot have, any
complete history of the invention of machines, because most of them are at
first imperfect, and receive gradual improvements and increase of powers from
those who use them.” [1]
At the rudest and lowest
level, some simple inventions were, as indicated earlier, within the capacity
of a common slave to invent. In the past
many inventions of not too great complexity were made by common workmen. “A great part of the machines made use of in those
manufactures in which labour is most subdivided, were
originally the inventions of common workmen, who, being each of them employed
in some very simple operation, naturally turned their thoughts towards finding
out easier and readier methods of performing it.” [2]
Reverting to the operation
of the grinding mill, Smith is prepared to concede that the simpler inventions
(he cites the feeder and shoe) might have been developed by the miller himself.
However, the more complex inventions
were probably beyond the limited vision and capacity of the miller. Here Smith suggests that such sophisticated
innovations as the cogwheel and the trundle were probably the work of
millwrights. For these inventions “...
bear the most evident marks of the ingenuity of a very intelligent artist.” Smith shows here [3] an awareness
of the vital role to be played by the capital-goods industries as a source of
technological change. Such
possibilities, he argues, however, are limited by the size of the market for
capital goods which, in turn, determines when (and whether) capital-goods
production can be undertaken as a specialized trade. “All the improvements in machinery... have by
no means been the inventions of those who had occasion to use the machines. Many improvements have been made by the
ingenuity of the makers of the machines, when to make them became the business
of a peculiar trade..” [4]
1. Early Draft, p. 337, and Lectures, p. 167. Smith’s
evolutionist position here is strongly reminiscent of Mandeville: “... We often
ascribe to the Excellency of Man’s Genius, and the Depth of his Penetration,
what is in Reality owing to length of Time, and the Experience of many
Generations, all of them very little differing from one another in natural
Parts and Sagacity.” Fable
of the Bees, ed. F. B. Kaye, 1924, volume II, p. 142. Also “... the Works of Art and human
Invention are all very lame and defective, and most of them pitifully mean at
first: Our knowledge is advanced by slow Degrees, and some Arts and Sciences
require the Experience of many Ages, before they can be brought to any
tolerable Perfection.” Ibid., pp. 186-7. For further discussion of Mandeville’s evolutionist
views of social development, see Nathan Rosenberg, “Mandeville and
Laissez-faire “, Journal of the History of Ideas, April - June 1963, pp.
183-96.
2. Wealth of Nations, p. 9.
3. Early Draft, p. 337. Smith’s preoccupation with technological
change in milling operations is shared by Marx, who states that “the whole
history of the development of machinery can be traced in the history of the
corn mill.”. Capital, p. 348.
4. Wealth of Nations, p. 10.
132
Continuing up the scale of
complexity and sophistication, invention at the highest levels involves acts of
insight, creative synthesis, and the capacity to draw upon diverse fields of
knowledge. The most important inventions
of all are the works of philosophers, who perceive and exploit new
relationships and natural phenomena to human advantage. [1] A philosopher or “meer man of speculation” is
one of these people whose trade it is, not to do any
thing but to observe every thing, and who are upon that account capable of
combining together the powers of the most opposite and distant objects. To apply in the most advantageous manner those
powers, which are allready known and which have
already been applyed to a particular purpose, does
not exceed the capacity of an ingenious artist. But to think of the application of new powers,
which are altogether unknown, and which have never before been applied to any
similar purpose, belongs to those only who have a greater range of thought and
more extensive views of things than naturally fall to the share of a meer artist. [2]
The loftiest pinnacles of
inventive activity, then, are occupied by philosophers, and the less rarefied
heights are inhabited by artists whose activities involve less novelty and
creative insight and who engage also in improving upon the inventions of more
illustrious men.
It was a real philosopher only who could invent the
fire engine, [3] and first form the idea of producing so great an effect, by a
power in nature which had never before been thought of. Many inferior artists, employed in the fabric
of this wonderful machine may after wards discover more happy methods of
applying that power than those first made use of by its illustrious inventor. It must have been a philosopher who, in the same
manner first invented, those now common and therefore
disregarded, machines, wind and water mills. Many inferior artists may have afterwards
improved them. [4]
In short, the “capacity to
invent” cannot be assessed or measured in absolute terms; the concept is
meaningful only in relation to the complexity of the existing technology and
the degree of creative imagination required in order for new “breakthroughs” to
occur. Presumably, then, even if the
alertness and intellectual capacity of the common labourer
remained constant, or increased somewhat, it would be inadequate to perform the
increasingly complicated intellectual feats required of an inventor in a
technically progressive society.
1. In his “History of Astronomy” Smith defines philosophy as “... the
science of the connecting principles of nature... as in those sounds, which to
the greater part of men seem perfectly agreeable to measure and harmony, the
nicer ear of a musician will discover a want, both of the most exact time, and
of the most perfect coincidence: so the more practised
thought of a philosopher, who has spent his whole life in the study of the
connecting principles of nature, will often feel an interval betwixt two
objects, which, to more careless observers, seem very strictly conjoined.” Adam Smith, “History of
Astronomy “, in Essays on Philosophical Subjects, pp. 19 and 20. It is this ability to perceive gaps and to
formulate problems which, for Smith, constitutes the critical step in scientific
inquiry and also in the discovery and application of useful knowledge.
2. Early Draft, pp. 337-8.
3. i.e., steam engine.
4. Early Draft, p. 338. Cf. also Lectures, pp. 167-8.
133
A strategic determinant,
within Smith’s framework, of the capacity to invent is now clear. Major inventions involve the ability to draw
upon diverse areas of human knowledge and experience and to combine them in a
unique fashion to serve some specific purpose. The ideal intellectual equipment for such
synthesis is possessed by “... philosophers or men of speculation, whose trade
it is not to do any thing, but to observe every thing; and who, upon that
account, are often capable of combining together the powers of the most distant
and dissimilar objects.” [1] This is, of
course, precisely the talent which workmen become progressively less capable
of exerting as the increasing division of labour
continually narrows the range of the worker’s activities (and therefore, since “...
the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their
ordinary employments”, [2] of his comprehension). Although, therefore, division of labour strengthens the force of a worker’s attention upon a
narrow range of activities and perhaps as a result increases his capacity for
instituting small improvements, it is likely to disable him completely for the
task of undertaking major inventions which involve drawing upon ranges of
knowledge and experience to which he is less and less likely to be exposed. Originally, therefore, when
production involved a relatively simple technology, increasing division of labour, by sharpening and concentrating the focus of a
worker’s attention, made it easier for him to invent and to institute
non-fundamental improvements within the existing technology. As technology becomes increasingly complex,
however, and as the solutions to problems require the ability to draw upon
sources of knowledge and experience from a wide range of areas or disciplines,
the worker is likely to be increasingly inadequate because of the exceedingly
narrow repertory of materials from which he can draw.
But though Smith visualized
the worker as becoming increasingly stupid and ignorant as a result of further
division of labour, there is no reason to believe
that this was necessarily inconsistent or incompatible with the possibilities
for continuing technical progress and invention. This, in fact, brings us to a major point of
this article. Smith looked upon the
growing division of labour as a process which had not
only an historical but necessarily also an important social dimension. Therefore, to concentrate solely on the impact
of the division of labour upon the working class
leads to the adoption of a very partial and misleading view of the economic and
social consequence of division of labour. This can be seen most forcefully if we look at
the changing structure of the social division of labour
as a society moves from a primitive to a civilized condition.
The movement from a
primitive to a civilized society is characterized by an enormous proliferation
in the number of productive activities performed in society. In a primitive - i.e., unspecialized - economy
each worker is, in general, obliged to perform a significant fraction
1. Wealth of Nations, p. 10.
2. Ibid., p. 734.
134
of the total number of activities. As society progresses toward a more civilized
state the number of separate activities grows prodigiously but the number
performed by each individual worker declines. In an advanced society, then, there are many
more activities going on in the economy but the individual worker is confined
to a very narrow range. While the
structure of the social division of labour becomes
more complex, the individual worker’s role becomes more
simple. In the extreme case, and
in contemporary jargon, the individual worker becomes the cheapest non-linear
servo-mechanism. This was the prospect
over which Smith (and later Marx) was so much exercised. [1] There are, however, important forces working
in the opposite direction, for the collective intelligence of society grows as
a result of the very process which causes the understanding of the “inferiour ranks of people” to become increasingly
defective. [2] For the increased productivity resulting from
specialization and division of labour is evident too
in those trades which are concerned with the production of new knowledge.
1. “The knowledge, the judgment, and the will, which, though in ever so
small a degree, are practised by the independent
peasant or handicraftsman, in the same way as the savage makes the whole art of
war consist in the exercise of his personal cunning - these faculties are now
required only for the workshop as a whole. Intelligence in production expands in one
direction, because it vanishes in many others. What is lost by the detail labourers, is concentrated
in the capital that employs them. It is
a result of the division of labour in manufactures
that the labourer is brought face to face with the
intellectual potencies of the material process of production, as the property
of another, and as a ruling power. This
separation begins in simple co-operation, where the capitalist represents to
the single workman, the oneness and the will of the associated labour. It is
developed in manufacture which cuts down the labourer
into a detail labourer. It is completed in modern industry, which
makes science a productive force distinct from labour
and presses it into the service of capital “. Karl Marx, Capital, p.
361.
2. Adam Ferguson had some striking observations on this same process: “It
may even be doubted, whether the measure of national capacity increases with
the advancement of arts. Many mechanical
arts, indeed, require no capacity; they succeed best under a total suppression
of sentiment and reason; and ignorance is the mother of industry as well as of
superstition. Reflection and fancy are
subject to err; but a habit of moving the hand, or the foot, is independent of
either. Manufactures, accordingly,
prosper most where the mind is least consulted, and where the workshop may,
without any great effort of imagination, be considered as an engine, the parts
of which are men... But if many parts in the practice of every art, and in the
detail of every department, require no abilities, or actually tend to contract
and to limit the views of the mind, there are others which lead to general
reflections, and to enlargement of thought. Even in manufacture, the genious
of the master, perhaps, is cultivated, while that of the inferior workman lies waste... The practitioner of every art and profession
may afford matter of general speculation to the man of science; and thinking
itself, in this age of separations, may become a peculiar craft.” Adam Ferguson, An Essay on the History of
Civil Society, sixth edition, London, 1793, pp. 305-6. In his
discussion of the division of labour in Capital, Marx
suggests (p. 362) that Adam Smith learned about “the disadvantageous effects of
division of labour” from Ferguson, and that he merely
“reproduces” Ferguson in Book V of the Wealth of Nations. Earlier (p. 354) Marx even refers to “A.
Ferguson, the master of Adam Smith”. Presumably
Marx had in mind the fact that the first edition of Ferguson’s An Essay on
the History of Civil Society was published in 1767, nine years before the Wealth
of Nations. The discovery of the
1763 Lectures, however, sufficiently establishes Smith’s priority in
this matter. Cf. also Karl Marx, The
Poverty of Philosophy, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, no date,
pp. 129-30.
135
In the progress of society, philosophy or speculation
becomes, like every other employment, the principal or sole trade and
occupation of a particular class of citizens. Like every other employment too, it is
sub-divided into a great number of different branches, each of which affords
occupation to a peculiar tribe or class of philosophers; and this subdivision
of employment in philosophy, as well as in every other business, improves
dexterity, and saves time. Each
individual becomes more expert in his own peculiar branch, more work is done
upon the whole, and the quantity of science is considerably increased by it. [1]
We can express this in an
admittedly over-simplified chronological sequence. In all societies antecedent to the development
of an extensive division of labour in manufactures, the
level of knowledge and understanding of the majority of the population is
“considerable”, but the dispersion is small, and there are few individuals with
attainments and abilities far above the average.
In such a society indeed, no man can well acquire that
improved and refined understanding, which a few men sometimes possess in a more
civilized state. Though in a rude
society there is a good deal of variety in the occupations of every individual,
there is not a great deal in those of the whole society. Every man does, or is capable of doing, almost
every thing which any other man does, or is capable of doing. Every man has a considerable degree of
knowledge, ingenuity, and invention; but scarce any man has a great degree. The degree, however, which is commonly
possessed, is generally sufficient for conducting the whole simple business of
the society. [2]
ln
an advanced society with an extensive division of labour,
however, the intellectual attainments of the “labouring
poor” are hopelessly stultified and corrupted by the monotony and uniformity of
the work process. On the other hand,
such a society is made up of an endlessly variegated number of such activities,
and although the worker’s own personal assignment may be unchallenging and
lacking in significant opportunities, the sum total of the occupations in
society presents extraordinary opportunities for the detached and contemplative
philosophers. [3] Although then the modal level of understanding is very
1. Wealth of Nations, p. 10. Smith had expressed this same view as far back
as the writing of the Early Draft (p. 338): “Philosophy or speculation,
in the progress of society, naturally becomes, like every other employment, the
sole occupation of a particular class of citizens. Like every other trade it is subdivided into
many different branches, and we have mechanical, chemical, astronomical,
physical, metaphysical, moral, political, commercial and critical philosophers.
In philosophy, as in every other
business, this subdivision of employment improves dexterity and saves time. Each individual is more expert at his
particular branch. More work is done
upon the whole and the quantity of science is considerably increased by it.” More succinctly, Smith stated a few pages
later (p. 344): “In opulent and commercial societies... to think or to reason
comes to be, like every other employment, a particular business, which is
carried on by a very few people, who furnish the public with all the thought
and reason possessed by the vast multitudes that labour.”
2. Wealth of Nations, p. 735.
3. At this point Smith parts company with Mandeville who,
characteristically, is reluctant to attribute a beneficent social role to the
man of pure knowledge; [“…They are very
seldom the same Sort of People, those that invent Arts, and Improvements in
them, and those that enquire into the Reason of Things: this latter is most
commonly practis’d by such, as are idle and indolent,
that are fond of Retirement, hate Business, and take delight in Speculation:
whereas none succeed oftener in the first, than active, stirring, and laborious
Men, such as will put their Hand to the Plough, try Experiments, and give all
their Attention to what they are about.”. Mandeville, op.
cit., vol. ii, p. 144.]
HHC: [bracketed] displayed on page 137 of original.
136
low, the highest levels of scientific attainment
permitted by the extensive specialization in the production of knowledge are
quite remarkable. The collective intelligence
of the civilized society, then, is very great and presents unique and
unprecedented opportunities for further technical progress.
In a civilized state… though there is little variety
in the occupations of the greater part of individuals, there is an almost
infinite variety in those of the whole society. These varied occupations present an almost
infinite variety of objects to the contemplation of those few, who, being
attached to no particular occupation themselves, have leisure and inclination
to examine the occupations of other people.
The contemplation of so great a variety of objects necessarily exercises
their minds in endless comparisons and combinations, and renders their
understandings, in an extraordinary degree, both acute and comprehensive. [1]
We can now complete our
analysis by calling attention to two further points, both of which reinforce
the interpretation of Smith presented here. First of all, the more extreme debilitating
consequences of the division of labour do not make themselves
felt upon those employed in agriculture. This is owing to the fact that the dependence
of agriculture upon the changing of the seasons imposes constraints upon the
extent to which division of labour can be carried in
that sector. [2] Precisely because the division of labour
has failed to make the extensive inroads upon agricultural practices that it
did upon manufacturing, Smith insists that the understanding of the inhabitants
of the countryside is superior to that of their counterparts in manufacturing. Indeed, “after what are called the fine arts, and the liberal professions there is perhaps no trade
which requires so great a variety of knowledge and experience.” [3] Smith contrasts invidiously the knowledge, judgment and
experience required in the common mechanic trades with that required in
agriculture. Furthermore, “not only the
art of the farmer, the general direction of the operations of husbandry, but
many inferior branches of country labour, require
much more skill and experience than the greater part of mechanic trades.” [4] Smith clearly believes that the agricultural worker avoids
the “drowsy stupidity” of his urban cousins because the changing requirements
of his work are continually imposing demands upon his judgment and
1 Wealth of Nations, pp. 735-6.
2. Ibid., p. 6; Lectures, p. 164; Early Draft, pp.
329-30.
3. Wealth of Nations, p. 126.
4. Ibid., p. 127.
137
discretion, and therefore keeping alive those mental capacities
which the urban worker eventually loses through sheer desuetude. [1] Even
the common ploughman, though generally regarded as the
pattern of stupidity and ignorance, is seldom defective in this judgment and
discretion. He is less accustomed,
indeed, to social intercourse than the mechanic who lives in a town. His voice and language are more uncouth and
more difficult to be understood by those who are not used to them. His understanding, however, being accustomed
to consider a greater variety of objects, is generally much superior to that of
the other, whose whole attention from morning till night is commonly occupied
in performing one or two very simple operations. How much the lower ranks of people in the
country are really superior to those of the town, is well known to every man
whom either business or curiosity has led to converse much with both. [2]
Our final point is that
Smith sees the upper ranks of society as a group which is thoroughly insulated
from the ravages of the division of labour. Whereas the agricultural population is
exempted from the worst ravages of division of labour
by inherent limits upon the extent to which such division can be carried in
agriculture, people “of some rank or fortune” are exempted by virtue of the
simple fact that they are not compelled to earn their livelihoods through
prolonged drudgery and exertions at relatively menial activities.
The employments.. in which people of some rank or fortune spend the greater
part of their lives, are not, like those of the common people, simple and
uniform. They are almost all of them
extremely complicated, and such as exercise the head more than the hands. The understandings of those who are engaged in
such employments can seldom grow torpid for want of exercise. The employments of people of some rank and
fortune, besides, are seldom such as harass them from
morning to night. They generally have a
good deal of leisure, during which they may perfect themselves in every branch
either of useful or ornamental knowledge of which they may have laid the
foundation, or for which they may have acquired some taste in the earlier part
of life. [3]
It is clear, then, that
although the division of labour has potentially
disastrous effects upon the moral and intellectual qualities of the labour force, and although Smith
was seriously concerned with these
1. Smith may well have been prejudiced against urban life, as West has
suggested, but it should now be clear that it is not necessary to resort to
such a deus ex machina
in order to account for Smith’s views. West states: “... it seems likely that Smith’s
complaint of moral and intellectual degeneration was directed more against town
life as such than against the factory which was only one aspect of it” (West p.
30). In the light of the interpretation
set forward here, it seems much easier to regard Smith’s complaints as a
logical consequence of the differential incidence of division of labour upon rural and urban populations. Furthermore, of course, Smith objects to towns
because, in large measure as a result of geographic concentration, the spirit
of monopoly and restraints upon the competitive process develop much more
readily in urban than in rural areas. See Wealth of Nations, pp. 126-7.
2. Ibid., p. 127.
3. Ibid., pp. 736-7.
138
effects, he did not fear that such developments would
constitute a serious impediment to continued technological change. [1]
Thus Smith shows an acute
perception of the social and human as well as the economic consequences of the
division of labour in society. Whatever merit or demerit his analysis may
have (it is my opinion that it has considerable merit) it is certainly free of
serious contradictions. The main thrust
of his analysis, as I have argued, is that, as a direct result of increasing
division of labour, the creativity of society as a
whole grows while that of the labouring poor (“...
that is, the great body of the people”) declines. Marx was deeply appreciative of the nice
dialectic of Smith’s analysis, and certainly learned a good deal from it,
although he referred scornfully to Smith’s modest proposals for educating the
workers as consisting only of the administration of “homoeopathic doses.” [2] Be that as it may,
there are many who would contend that the broader aspects of the process with
which Smith was attempting to come to grips - the causes and the consequences
of technical progress - still constitute some of the most serious problems of
industrializing societies.
Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana.
139
The Competitiveness of Nations
in a Global Knowledge-Based Economy
October 200
3